Posted on 12/20/2014 11:44:22 AM PST by Zakeet
Blame Game: Sony Corp., having already taken a massive hit from North Korea's hack job, is now being attacked at home as a coward for canceling "The Interview." But what else was it supposed to do?
[Snip]
Hollywood is all too willing to cave under pressure from politically correct interest groups — without anyone ever raising an eyebrow.
But before lumping Sony in with the rest of these cowardly acts, consider that DHS's reassurances apparently weren't enough to convince Sony executives there was no chance of an attack. What does that say about the administration's national security abilities?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Stupid? Yes. For making the movie in the first place.
Coward? No. They didn’t cancel the theaters did. But one real life attack and they would be in endless lawsuits from smarmy individuals who knew the risks but blame Sony anyway.
Problem nobody is addressing: if they showed The Interview anyway, and there WAS an attack (whether coordinated assault or an idiot with a negligent discharge) at any time (opening day or years hence) at any showing (major gala or obscure arthouse screening), the studio would be sued & humiliated into oblivion.
Here is my question-- what price would be paid by per perpetrators? Care to sue North Korea? Good luck with that. A better answer is to blow their punk-ass navy out of the water as a demonstration of our resolve. But that risks bringing on a general war that we are not ready for.
Right on, sir!! Although it was the theater owners who cancelled out, actually forcing SONY to give up, the responsibility would have fallen on SONY, the one with the deepest pockets.
The next movie would have been titled “SONY BEFORE THE BAR OF JUSTICE”.
It would have required a cast of thousands, just to fill the roles of the lawyers.
No. The theaters did the important cancellation. All Sony did was acknowledged that they didn’t have anyplace to show their movie.
Would those same theaters buckle if it were Christians boycotting a movie.
It would've been better satire if, like with the classic Mouse That Roared, the humor is directed to a fictional country and leader, perhaps with a lot of similarities to a real one. Not taking the risk? Of course they can't.
What Sony should be doing is taking responsibility for their lousy computer security and low-class gossipy employees. It's not the government's job to secure a corporation's computer systems.
It wasn’t about a boycott, it was about the threat of a terrorist attack, and opening day, which was going to be Christmas. Ask yourself if you’re a PR guy for Harkins what happens if the threat turns out real, and they hit one of your theaters, and it goes down in history as the Harkins Christmas Massacre, and what is your responsibility in that scenario?
There wasn’t going to be any attacks. Come on.
especially a foreign government like the US
Probably correct. But the PR’s guys job is to make sure there isn’t, not on his company’s property. And there’s only one way to do that. Look up the Aurora shooting, notice how in almost every story about it the words “Century Movie Theater” is in the first sentence. These guys are specifically employed to make that not happen, ESPECIALLY if they’ve been forewarned.
EXACTLY! Thank you for your excellent post #10.
Instead we just get frat-house style spectator hoots and hollers for more nonsense and risk while all the players are pointing fingers and skirting responsibility.
Where was all the uproar for the assassinate Bush movie?
It wasn’t Sony but MGM caved to the Chinese when they made the awful Red Dawn reboot. The Chinese invaders were all CGI changed to North Koreans. I do recall a big stink in the North Korean Peoples News Agency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.